Legal Research
Cases
Lai v Huang

Lai v Huang

Case [2016] NZHC 2828 25 November 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1535 [2016] NZHC 2828

BETWEEN
SOPHIE LAI also known as SHU-HWA

LAI
First Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD HUANG Second Plaintiff

AND

LIU SHUN-MEI HUANG and as executrix of the ESTATE OF HSIU-LIN HUANG

First Defendant

AND

CHUN-CHING HUANG Second Defendant

AND

CHUN-TA HUANG Third Defendant

Hearing: 16 November 201

Appearances:

R Reed and A Manuson for the Plaintiffs/Respondents
J Robertson for the Defendants/Applicants

Judgment:

25 November 2016

Reissued:

28 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 November 2016 at 2.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Prestige Lawyers Limited, Auckland.

SOPHIE LAI also known as SHU-HWA LAI v HUANG [2016] NZHC 2828 [25 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] This claim concerns the estate of Hsui Lin Huang (Mr Huang) who died on

24 August 2012. He left a will dated 22 May 1997 (the will) which related to his New Zealand assets. Pursuant to the will, the first defendant, his wife Liu Shun-Mei Huang (Mrs Huang), was appointed executrix and, given her survivorship of him for the requisite period, was bequeathed the whole of his estate. The second defendant, Chun-Ching Huang (Chun-Ching) and third defendant Chun-Ta Huang (Chun-Ta) are their children.

[2] The first plaintiff, Sophie Lai (Sophie), is the estranged wife of Chun-Ta. The second plaintiff is their son, Richard Huang (Richard).

[3] By proceedings commenced in July 2016, Sophie brings a number of claims against the estate including under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act
1949 (TPA), Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA) and Property (Relationships) Act

1976 (PRA).

[4] The defendants have applied to strike out the claims under the TPA, FPA and PRA. They also seek an order for security for costs. The applications are opposed by the plaintiffs.

Background

[5] From the start of their relationship, Sophie and Chun-Ta lived with Mr Huang, in a property Mr Huang owned. After Mr and Mrs Huang or the family trust acquired a farm in Coatesville, Auckland (Coatesville Farm) in approximately
1997, Chun-Ta worked there. Sophie says she did as well. They moved to live at Coatesville Farm in 2003. By this time, Mr Huang was living at another farm property he owned in Wellsford (the Wellsford Farm). Chun-Ta suffered a stroke in
2004 but he and Sophie continued living at Coatesville Farm.

[6] In 2008, Mr Huang moved to live at Coatesville Farm. In the same year, Sophie and her children, Richard and Gini, moved to live in Albany. Sophie says she

continued going to Coatesville Farm at weekends and lived in Albany only because it was more convenient for the children’s schooling. The defendants maintain that Sophie and Chun-Ta, in fact, separated at that date and any minimal assistance she might have provided on Coatesville Farm ceased from that time.

[7] Chun-Ching moved to New Zealand in 2002. He purchased various houses, Sophie says using funds provided by Mr Huang.

[8] Mr Huang also owned…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lai v Huang

Details

AGLC: Lai v Huang [2016] NZHC 2828
Case: [2016] NZHC 2828
Decision Date: 25 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to decide whether certain claims made by Sophie Lai and her son Richard against the estate of Hsui Lin Huang should be dismissed. The claims related to alleged assurances made by Mr Huang about the ownership of a farm and other assets. The defendants, Mr Huang’s wife and children, argued the claims should be dismissed because the estate had been distributed and the claims were time-barred. The court found that the estate had indeed been distributed and that the claims under two specific Acts were barred by statute because they were not made within the required time frames. However, the court allowed a claim under the Property (Relationships) Act to proceed, albeit with some limitations and conditions. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs provide security for costs, given the complexity and length of the proceedings.

Orders